It is because of the virtual character of the big Other that, as Lacan put it at the very end of his “Seminar on the Purloined Letter,” a letter always arrives at its destination. One can even say that the only letter that fully and effectively arrives at its destination is the unsent letter – its true addressee is not flesh-and-blood others, but the big Other itself:
“The preservation of the unsent letter is its arresting feature. Neither the writing not the sending is remarkable (we often make drafts of letters and discard them), but the gesture of keeping the message when we have no intention of sending it. By saving the letter, we are in some sense 'sending' it after all. We are not relinquishing our idea or dismissing it as foolish or unworthy (as we do when we tear up a letter); on the contrary, we are giving it an extra vote of confidence. We are, in effect, saying that our idea is too precious to be entrusted to the actual addressee, who may not grasp its worth, so we 'send' it to his equivalent in fantasy, on whom we can absolutely count for an understanding and appreciative reading.”
Addendum: Again, Lacan in his own words:
"And why the Other with a capital O? For a no doubt mad reason, in the same way as it is madness every time we are obliged to bring in signs supplementary to those given by language. Here the mad reason is the following. You are my wife – after all, what do you know about it? You are my master – in reality, are you so sure of that? What creates the founding value of those words is that what is aimed at in the message, as well as what is manifest in the pretence, is that the other is there qua absolute Other. Absolute, that is to say he is recognized, but is not known. In the same way, what constitutes pretence is that, in the end, you don’t know whether it’s a pretence or not. Essentially it is this unknown element in the alterity of the other which characterizes the speech relation on the level on which it is spoken to the other."
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Just food for thought:
Chomsky on Lacan: "amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan" (he also admits that his early works are worth analyzing). In another post I can longer find the link to, Chomsky concedes he does not actually understand many of Lacan's writings.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html
For a rather harsh criticism of the book you are outlining:
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n17oneill
"In the absence of any detectable method, a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance. Example after example is supplied, but the principle that makes them examples is not itself given. Appeals are implicitly made to Lacan's authority but the source of that authority is never mentioned. The truth of Lacan's theories is urged by showing how other people's theories support that truth but without explaining why these theories have the same object. One concept is defined in terms of another, which is then defined in the same way, ad infinitum. What's being explained is mixed in with what's doing the explaining in a circular fashion so striking that it may well count as both a novelty and a technical innovation in the practice of interpretation. Concepts are 'applied' without any boundaries on either the concepts or the scope of their application. Arguments and interpretations are hastily summarized rather than being patiently outlined. Finally, sheer rhetorical force substitutes for argument."
http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/issues/v29/v29n3.harpham1.html
"The effect is that of a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention. Zizek does not seem to believe that books should be about something; he reproduces his central themes compulsively regardless of the ostensible subject."
Chomsky on Lacan: "amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan" (he also admits that his early works are worth analyzing). In another post I can longer find the link to, Chomsky concedes he does not actually understand many of Lacan's writings.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html
For a rather harsh criticism of the book you are outlining:
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n17oneill
"In the absence of any detectable method, a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance. Example after example is supplied, but the principle that makes them examples is not itself given. Appeals are implicitly made to Lacan's authority but the source of that authority is never mentioned. The truth of Lacan's theories is urged by showing how other people's theories support that truth but without explaining why these theories have the same object. One concept is defined in terms of another, which is then defined in the same way, ad infinitum. What's being explained is mixed in with what's doing the explaining in a circular fashion so striking that it may well count as both a novelty and a technical innovation in the practice of interpretation. Concepts are 'applied' without any boundaries on either the concepts or the scope of their application. Arguments and interpretations are hastily summarized rather than being patiently outlined. Finally, sheer rhetorical force substitutes for argument."
http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/issues/v29/v29n3.harpham1.html
"The effect is that of a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention. Zizek does not seem to believe that books should be about something; he reproduces his central themes compulsively regardless of the ostensible subject."
MEXICAN SOAPS AND THE THREE LEVELS FOR LACAN, S.#2
Mexican soap operas are shot in such a fast rhythm (every single day a 25-minute episode) that the actors do not even get the script to learn their lines in advance; they have tiny receivers in their ears which tell them what to do, and they learn to enact directly what they hear (“Now slap him and tell him you hate him! Then embrace him!…”). This strange procedure provides us with an image of what, according to the common perception, Lacan means by "the big Other.” The symbolic order is the second nature of every speaking being: it is here, directing and controlling my acts; I, as it were, swim in it, but it nonetheless remains ultimately impenetrable and I cannot ever put it in front of me and fully grasp it. It is as if we, subjects of language, talk and interact like puppets, our speech and gestures dictated by some anonymous all-pervasive agency. Does this mean that, for Lacan, we, human individuals, are mere epiphenomena, shadows with no real power of our own, that our self-perception as autonomous free agents is a kind of user’s illusion blinding us for the fact that we are tools in the hands of the big Other which, hidden behind the screen, pulls the strings?
There are, however, many features of the “big Other” which get lost in this simplified notion. For Lacan, the reality of human beings is constituted by three mutually entangled levels: the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. This triad can be nicely illustrated by the game of chess. The rules one has to follow in order to play it are its symbolic dimension: from the purely formal symbolic standpoint, “knight” is defined only by the moves this figure can make. This level is clearly different from the imaginary one, namely the way different pieces are shaped and characterized by their names (king, queen, knight), and it is easy to envision a game with the same rules, but with a different imaginary, in which this figure would be called “messenger” or “runner” or whatever. Finally, real is the entire complex set of contingent circumstances which affect the course of the game: the intelligence of the players, the unpredictable intrusions that may disconcert one of the players or directly cut the game short.
There are, however, many features of the “big Other” which get lost in this simplified notion. For Lacan, the reality of human beings is constituted by three mutually entangled levels: the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. This triad can be nicely illustrated by the game of chess. The rules one has to follow in order to play it are its symbolic dimension: from the purely formal symbolic standpoint, “knight” is defined only by the moves this figure can make. This level is clearly different from the imaginary one, namely the way different pieces are shaped and characterized by their names (king, queen, knight), and it is easy to envision a game with the same rules, but with a different imaginary, in which this figure would be called “messenger” or “runner” or whatever. Finally, real is the entire complex set of contingent circumstances which affect the course of the game: the intelligence of the players, the unpredictable intrusions that may disconcert one of the players or directly cut the game short.
Monday, June 28, 2010
GETTING AT THE BIG OTHER: THAT ELUSIVE, INDESCRIBABLE... THING, S.#1
The first of eight posts committed to a not-so-brief outline of the first chapter of How to Read Lacan, by Slavoj Zizek. This first post will highlight a few key points and phrases in re: Lacan's concern for language (the self-reflexivity, for instance, of an act of communication) and the role of the big Other in our lives (of what impels or dissuades one to do something). Now, I don't claim to to fully understand half of this complicated nonsense, but, nonetheless, here's a little taste of what's to come.
KEY POINTS
• In spite of all its grounding power, the big Other is fragile, insubstantial, practically virtual, in the sense that its status is that of a subjective presupposition.
• The big Other exists insofar as subjects act as if it exits.
• It is the substance of the individuals who recognize themselves in it, the ground of their whole existence, the point of reference that provides the ultimate horizon of meaning, something for which these individuals are ready to give their lives, yet the only thing that really exists are these individuals and their activity, so this substance is actual only insofar as individuals believe in it and act accordingly.
• This virtual character of the big Other means that the symbolic order is not a kind of spiritual substance existing independently of individuals, but something that is sustained through their continuous activity.
• Human communication is characterized by an irreducible reflexivity: every act of communication simultaneously symbolizes the fact of communication.
• Consciousness is opposed to mere knowledge of an object: Knowledge is external to the known object, while consciousness is in itself “practical,” an act that changes its very object.
• Once a worker “considers himself to belong to the ranks of the proletariat,” this changes his very reality: he acts differently.
• When one does something, one counts oneself as (declares oneself) the one who did it, and, on the base of this declaration, one does something new – the proper moment of subjective transformation occurs at the moment of declaration, not at the moment of the act.
• This reflexive moment of declaration means that every utterance not only transmits some content, but, simultaneously, conveys the way the subject relates to this content.
• The question to be raised is: What more doe this statement contain, that has caused you to make it?
• The act of not mentioning or concealing something can create additional meaning.
• One should not forget to include in the content of an act of communication the act itself, since the meaning of each act of communication is also to reflexively assert that it is an act of communication.
KEY POINTS
• In spite of all its grounding power, the big Other is fragile, insubstantial, practically virtual, in the sense that its status is that of a subjective presupposition.
• The big Other exists insofar as subjects act as if it exits.
• It is the substance of the individuals who recognize themselves in it, the ground of their whole existence, the point of reference that provides the ultimate horizon of meaning, something for which these individuals are ready to give their lives, yet the only thing that really exists are these individuals and their activity, so this substance is actual only insofar as individuals believe in it and act accordingly.
• This virtual character of the big Other means that the symbolic order is not a kind of spiritual substance existing independently of individuals, but something that is sustained through their continuous activity.
• Human communication is characterized by an irreducible reflexivity: every act of communication simultaneously symbolizes the fact of communication.
• Consciousness is opposed to mere knowledge of an object: Knowledge is external to the known object, while consciousness is in itself “practical,” an act that changes its very object.
• Once a worker “considers himself to belong to the ranks of the proletariat,” this changes his very reality: he acts differently.
• When one does something, one counts oneself as (declares oneself) the one who did it, and, on the base of this declaration, one does something new – the proper moment of subjective transformation occurs at the moment of declaration, not at the moment of the act.
• This reflexive moment of declaration means that every utterance not only transmits some content, but, simultaneously, conveys the way the subject relates to this content.
• The question to be raised is: What more doe this statement contain, that has caused you to make it?
• The act of not mentioning or concealing something can create additional meaning.
• One should not forget to include in the content of an act of communication the act itself, since the meaning of each act of communication is also to reflexively assert that it is an act of communication.
A "btw," by Anthony Brown
Wtf is up with the "loved but didn't read"? I mean, is not a man having his penis lopped off, sauteed, and then offered to him as a snack interesting? I agree that the review itself was boring (much as this sentence will become) and rather uninformative regarding any conclusive content tying all of these real-life grotesques together, coherently, that is. Anywhozzle, who's ever to blame, or at fault for this option, Fess Up!! Come clean, you fucking dirty monkey! Ok, clearly this lavender iced-tea isn't calming down shit...
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Psychology of Bliss
[Opening paragraph from a review of the new book "How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like."]
"In 2003, a German computer expert named Armin Meiwes advertised online for someone to kill and then eat. Incredibly, 200 people replied, and Meiwes chose a man named Bernd Brandes. One night, in Meiwes’s farmhouse, Brandes took some sleeping pills and drank some schnapps and was still awake when Meiwes cut off his penis, fried it in olive oil and offered him some to eat. Brandes then retreated to the bathtub, bleeding profusely. Meiwes stabbed him in the neck, chopped him up and stored him in the freezer. Over the next several weeks, he defrosted and sautéed 44 pounds of Brandes, eating him by candlelight with his best cutlery."
"In 2003, a German computer expert named Armin Meiwes advertised online for someone to kill and then eat. Incredibly, 200 people replied, and Meiwes chose a man named Bernd Brandes. One night, in Meiwes’s farmhouse, Brandes took some sleeping pills and drank some schnapps and was still awake when Meiwes cut off his penis, fried it in olive oil and offered him some to eat. Brandes then retreated to the bathtub, bleeding profusely. Meiwes stabbed him in the neck, chopped him up and stored him in the freezer. Over the next several weeks, he defrosted and sautéed 44 pounds of Brandes, eating him by candlelight with his best cutlery."
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Path of Man
Incited by my recent readings of Iron John by Robert Bly, and some discussion from the other day. I thought it might be interesting to make a post about different rites of passage from around the world.
First I'd like to briefly explain what Bly discusses as the three aspects of a male's rite of passage
Separation: During this phase an initiate is separated in some way from his former life. In modern example, when a man has just enlisted in the military, he is sent away to boot camp. His former possessions are put aside, his head is shaved, and he is given a uniform to wear. During the separation phase, part of the old self is extinguished as the initiate prepares to create a new identity.
Transition: During this phase, the initiate is between worlds-no longer part of his old life but not yet fully inducted into his new one. He is taught the knowledge needed to become a full-fledged member of that group. And he is called upon to pass tests that show he is ready for the leap. In tribal societies, the elders would impart to the initiate what it meant to be a man and how the boy was to conduct himself once he had become one. The initiate would then participate in ritual ceremonies which often involved pain and endurance. In the case of the new soldier, he is yelled at, prodded, exercised, and disciplined to prepare him to receive a rank and title.
Re-incorporation. In this phase, the initiate, having passed the tests necessary and proving himself worthy, is re-introduced into his community, which recognizes and honors his new status within the group. For tribal societies, this meant a village-wide feast and celebration. The boy would now be recognized by all tribe members as a man and allowed to participate in the activities and responsibilities that status conferred. For the soldier, his boot camp experience would come to an end and both his superiors and his family would join in a ceremony to recognize his new status as a full-fledged member of the military.
During all phases of the process, the men who have gone through the ritual themselves guide the young initiate on his journey. By controlling the rite of passage, the men decide when a boy becomes a man.
As we discussed the other day, this is normal in most cultures, however the men in our country grow without this passage being enacted by anyone unless he engages in something like the military. So I thought it might interesting in subsequent comments to discuss different rituals from the world-over.
First I'd like to briefly explain what Bly discusses as the three aspects of a male's rite of passage
Separation: During this phase an initiate is separated in some way from his former life. In modern example, when a man has just enlisted in the military, he is sent away to boot camp. His former possessions are put aside, his head is shaved, and he is given a uniform to wear. During the separation phase, part of the old self is extinguished as the initiate prepares to create a new identity.
Transition: During this phase, the initiate is between worlds-no longer part of his old life but not yet fully inducted into his new one. He is taught the knowledge needed to become a full-fledged member of that group. And he is called upon to pass tests that show he is ready for the leap. In tribal societies, the elders would impart to the initiate what it meant to be a man and how the boy was to conduct himself once he had become one. The initiate would then participate in ritual ceremonies which often involved pain and endurance. In the case of the new soldier, he is yelled at, prodded, exercised, and disciplined to prepare him to receive a rank and title.
Re-incorporation. In this phase, the initiate, having passed the tests necessary and proving himself worthy, is re-introduced into his community, which recognizes and honors his new status within the group. For tribal societies, this meant a village-wide feast and celebration. The boy would now be recognized by all tribe members as a man and allowed to participate in the activities and responsibilities that status conferred. For the soldier, his boot camp experience would come to an end and both his superiors and his family would join in a ceremony to recognize his new status as a full-fledged member of the military.
During all phases of the process, the men who have gone through the ritual themselves guide the young initiate on his journey. By controlling the rite of passage, the men decide when a boy becomes a man.
As we discussed the other day, this is normal in most cultures, however the men in our country grow without this passage being enacted by anyone unless he engages in something like the military. So I thought it might interesting in subsequent comments to discuss different rituals from the world-over.
The big 'Other'
While talking, I am never merely a "small other" (individual) interacting with other "small others": the big Other must always be there. This inherent reference to the Other is the topic of a low-grade joke about a poor peasant who, having suffered a shipwreck, finds himself marooned on an island with, say, Cindy Crawford. After having sex with him, she asks how it was; his answer is, great, but he still has one small request to complete his satisfaction -- could she dress herself up as his best friend, put on trousers and paint a mustache on her face? He reassures her that he is not a secret pervert, as she will see once she has granted the request. When she does, he approaches her, gives her a dig in the ribs, and tells her with the leer of male complicity: "You know what happened to me? I just had sex with Cindy Crawford!" This Third, which is always present as the witness, belies the possibility of an unspoiled innocent private pleasure. Sex is always minimally exhibitionist and relies on another's gaze.
-- Slavoj Zizek: How to Read Lacan
-- Slavoj Zizek: How to Read Lacan
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Cornel West
This notion that we had it all, or ever will have it all, that's got to go, you got to push it to the side. And once you push all that to the side then it tends to evacuate the language of disappointment and the language of failure. And then you say ok, Well how much have we done, how've we been able to do it, can we do more? In certain situations you can't do more. It's like trying to break dance at 75: you can't do it anymore. You were a master at 16, it's over! You can't make love at 80 the way you did when you were 20... So what? Shit... time is real.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Walrus and the Carpenter
"Work?! The time has come," the Walrus said
"To talk of other things
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings
Calloo-Callay
No work today!
We're cabbages and kings"
"To talk of other things
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings
Calloo-Callay
No work today!
We're cabbages and kings"
Monday, June 7, 2010
Ah to be Russian and in the Soviet hay-day
Last week, famed Russian poet Andrei Voznesensky passed away and with him a lineage of Russian poets under Khrushchev who were the true rock stars even under Soviet rule. Maybe dictatorships have their perks. Also memorable quote “Bad literature is its own form of treason.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/books/03poets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/books/03poets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Contrarian
Brief, and I'm sure heavily edited, interview with Hitchens in which he quite casually reveals something about himself.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Now, This is Fucking Crazy
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/310026/june-02-2010/craziest-f--ing-thing-i-ve-ever-heard---gored-bullfighter
How It Is: A La Morgan Freeman
Morgan was interviewed this week on the Daily Show. He has a new show coming out on the Science Channel called "Through the 'Motherfucking' Wormhole, 'Motherfuckers', with Morgan 'Motherfucking' Freeman."
Jon asks: "Do scientists now know, do they have a sense of where we came from?"
Morgan: "There are scientists who have a very clear sense of where we came from, and there are other scientists who feel that the scientists who have a very clear idea don't know what they're talking about, because we don't have a very clear sense of where we come from."
Then, Jon asks after dark matter, how, apparently, dark matter and dark energy take up about five times more space in the universe than actual matter.
Jon: "What the hell does that mean?"
Morgan: "Exactly."
Jon: "And they say it's holding us together?"
Morgan: "How?"
Jon: "Right!"
Morgan: "Well, these are the questions that I like to ask also..."
Jon: "What do they tell you?"
Morgan: "This is where we get into the G-d part of it. Whatever scientists don't know, becomes a G-d factor."
Anyhow, apologies for the transcript. It's a good interview so might as well watch it: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-2-2010/morgan-freeman
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Myriad:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myriad
Read it and weep T-Bag.
"Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."
Read it and weep T-Bag.
"Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Lest the Morning Mist Beguile You!
Sure you could argue against drinking. It damages a society from the inside out, it can lead to immoral acts, rend apart a family, drunk driving, it kills people, and so on. Yes, there's plenty good arguments against drinking. But, sir, have you ever been drunk?
Symposium, explain yourself!
[Latin, drinking party, from Greek sumposion : sun-, syn- + posis
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)